MBP updates have come in between six and eighteen months intervals (or even slightly narrower range). But you predict boldly that the next models will stay in the stores for three years? Or aren't you rather just ranting and exaggerating wildly because it makes the rant feel better?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Begins Shipping First Kaby Lake Processors, but Most Macs Won't Get Them Until 2017
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you saying that Broadwell is actually the better CPU over Kaby Lake? If not, then what is your point?
Seems like Apple's axis is on anorexic design: Thin, Low power, Long battery life. This is terrific axiom for mobile. Not so great for computing plugged into power. Computing has effectively spit into two, the computer in your hand, on your laptop, combined with connected cloud services. They maybe right to ignore powered on computing entirely.
Apple's' major failure is:
- They don't communicate (that is Apple's trademark, so.. I'm not expecting a big change here)
- (reasonable) up to date
- Older hardware where Intel/AMD/others have failed. Failed to deliver, or the product is not what it was supposed to be. Apple can't do much but wait and postpone.. or cancel
- Old hardware, but there have been an ideal update (CPU from Intel for instance) available for some time, but Apple still wont update. That's a sign of EOL
- iMac 5k (GPU might get updated soon), Macbook
- iMac 21.5", Mac Pro, rMBP 15"
- Mac Mini, Macbook air, rMBP 13"
Last edited:
Read what he and I wrote. The Broadwell (and in fact even some Ivy Bridge processors) chips are the highest performing mobile processors on the market. Nothing released since can touch them in overall performance. So Apple is supposed to do what, release a slower machine just because the processor is newer?
Since there are no Kaby Lake processors shipping is pretty obvious that this is not what he meant, ie, he meant Broadwell vs Haswell. He was also referring specifically to ones in the 15" MBP, not all Broadwell chips.
The leaps in GPUs this year have been amazing. I haven't heard much about the mobile (iMac suitable) side of things but I can imagine it could make for an exciting update to an iMac retina. I don't care about any of apple's laptop offerings. I won't do any real work on a laptop.
These new GPU generations are faster, cooler, more power efficient. Come on, Apple. Give me an nVidia option in a machine. Mac pro or iMac. Give me an excuse to drop some coin on your desktop offerings. The skylake processor in the iMac is great kit. But give us a next gen GPU, and nVidia as a pay to upgrade option! I'll pre-order.
Going 6 core in an iMac would be great. I wonder if they could move to a more beefy CPU if they saved heat and power with the new generation of GPUs.
These new GPU generations are faster, cooler, more power efficient. Come on, Apple. Give me an nVidia option in a machine. Mac pro or iMac. Give me an excuse to drop some coin on your desktop offerings. The skylake processor in the iMac is great kit. But give us a next gen GPU, and nVidia as a pay to upgrade option! I'll pre-order.
Going 6 core in an iMac would be great. I wonder if they could move to a more beefy CPU if they saved heat and power with the new generation of GPUs.
"That's about it"? I thought apple was something more than that. I thought it was a computer company that wanted to inspire, to appeal not just to the casual user (that's what windows are for with their mediocre OS) but to the professionals, the geeks and those who don't see computers as just a tool to do their work and contributed in the early years of Apple's success.
But who cares. Screw the professionals and geeks. Let's just focus to the casual consumers and the hipster crowd and the products they are paying most for like iPhones and watch bands.
What a joke of a company.
... are you kidding? My 2011 is night and day to the 2005 it replaced. Brand new engine design that delivers 20-21mpg highway compared to the 05's 14-15 on a good day. Increased towing capacity, horse power and low end torque couples with a brand new auto stability system that not only keeps the truck on all fours but actually prevents trailer sway before it starts. Fully integrated voice control system that makes everything hands free, from dialing a phone number to changing the radio frequency. A completely redesigned interior with almost a foot and a half more leg room in the back for rear passengers, coupled with a fold-flat rear seat that offers more interior cargo space than many SUV's. Completely redesigned fly by wire power steering system that increases stability and responsiveness but not at the expense of road feel.
As far as price goes, the sticker difference between the two was about 2 grand, half of that was due to the fact my 11 had an upgraded chrome appearance package my 05 didn't, and the other half was for the upgraded engine which wasn't an option in the 05. So I see what you were getting at, but bad analogy.
Integrated GPUs have made advancements, but that's it until Nvidia released Pascal.
Regardless, it's been said over and over... the Skylake CPUs with the integrated GPUs that were destined for the rMBP line were delayed over and over. It was the exact same thing for Broadwell, and it's going to be the same for Cannonlake. That's why Kaby Lake will exist, as a stop gap to plug an Intel delay.
Apple went ahead and launched the Macbook with Skylake, but they aren't going to split the Air and 13 / 15 rMBP's into separate launches due to availability of some parts and not others.
The people mad about Apple "lagging behind" are the people that only pay attention to generalities while ignoring the details of the situation.
Last edited:
This is untrue. The newer ones have much faster integrated graphics, and looking at the CPU performance benchmark lists, they're about the same in terms of CPU performance. Also, on a laptop, people care about power efficiency too, and the newer ones are more efficient. Intel wouldn't release newer CPUs that are just worse, would they?
[doublepost=1469214865][/doublepost]
Shouldn't the Mac Pro be in group 3? There are newer, much faster Xeons available for the Mac Pro that Apple has ignored (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html). I've heard, but not confirmed, that people have upgraded their 2012 Mac Pros to have faster CPUs than the 2013.
Last edited:
the next Mac Mini should have 4.0Ghz 8 cores and 16 cores processors, easy replaceable RAM and SSD, the latest and greatest technology. We want it all, as easy as that. Basically an Apple designed Intel Skull Canyon with OS X on it.
the mac pro should be designed with a big form factor like the previous boxy model, so we can add (and keep hidden) cheap huge HDs and fast PCIe cards.
Who wants to have a small Mac Pro but their desk full of cables, external HDs and external cards ? NO ONE.
Clearly Jony screwed up, just swallow your pride and ego and release what customers want instead of rambling nonsense to the press.
the mac pro should be designed with a big form factor like the previous boxy model, so we can add (and keep hidden) cheap huge HDs and fast PCIe cards.
Who wants to have a small Mac Pro but their desk full of cables, external HDs and external cards ? NO ONE.
Clearly Jony screwed up, just swallow your pride and ego and release what customers want instead of rambling nonsense to the press.
Last edited:
No, I don't. I have an iMac that lasted my 9 years. I'd like it if my next computer similarly lasts 9 years.
I'm anticipating that either VR or 4K (or both) will be big within the next 9 years. That means that for my next computer to last me 9 years, my next computer needs to be ready to support those things.
Getting a more current CPU is a start. But Apple needs to seriously up their GPU game (especially for VR). I suspect Apple isn't going to do that though... so I'm going to have to look elsewhere for my next computer.
I'm willing to bet if Apple worked a deal with Intel, they'd be glad to make the "suitable" ones faster
Intel has been beaten up one side and down the other for the delays. They are missing estimates and underperforming partially due to the delays over the past couple of generations. I'm sure they are quite motivated to fix their problem without some fictitious deal with Apple to "make them faster"
Glad I got my 2015 13" last year. I love the machine and I'll continue using it for years to come, it's still going to be plenty powerful for what I need. I do, however, wish that Apple would update the Mac line. It's getting a little long in the tooth and like others have said, we're now 2-3 processor generations behind.
The only thing sad about this is the simple fact that people defend Apple being behind any other company at all. Doesn't matter if they are right or wrong.
These ardent supporters of a company that was so future-centric appear to have given up on that "be the best"/"at the leading edge" ideal that Apple kind of stood for, and so readily accept being #2 or worse.
(Ironically, it's the same ones that celebrate when Apple is #1 in any other ranking that rush to the defense of old tech being sold in a "Pro" line)
These ardent supporters of a company that was so future-centric appear to have given up on that "be the best"/"at the leading edge" ideal that Apple kind of stood for, and so readily accept being #2 or worse.
(Ironically, it's the same ones that celebrate when Apple is #1 in any other ranking that rush to the defense of old tech being sold in a "Pro" line)
And that's 20-25% less powerful than the 2.8GHz i7 in the 15" rMBP. In fact it's barely more powerful than the 2.3GHz i7 in my 2012 15" cMBP. Look at the benchmarks.
But at least I have USB 3.1gen2 and Thunderbolt 3.
And a better GPU that's in any Mac anywhere right now...
Only problem is the track pad is not detected by OSX.. So gotta use a USB mouse.
And a better GPU that's in any Mac anywhere right now...
Only problem is the track pad is not detected by OSX.. So gotta use a USB mouse.
Yeah but we're talking CPU performance. That's what you quoted me on and that's why I'm so confused you boasted a much weaker CPU. We've already discussed dissatisfaction with dGPUs earlier in the thread.
Had that CPU been shipped in updated Macs, people would be whining about the Geekbench being 20% less than the previous gen. Whether USB 3.1 & TB3 is an appropriate tradeoff for the reduced power is an argument for another day.
2012 MacBook Pro 2.3Ghz i7
Single core 2775 multi core 10686
2016 Razer Blade 2.6Ghz i7
Single core 2906 multi core 10995
SO yes. Your CPU is still relevant, but it's not 20% more powerful.. But I agree, it's still perfectly fine.
Only it uses more power and generates more heat, and uses a slow RAM speed..
Etc etc.
[doublepost=1469225093][/doublepost]
Oh sorry. I read your 2.8 as 2.3. My mistake.
[doublepost=1469225186][/doublepost]However, I cannot find a 2.8 GHz model.